Dominic Lawson

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Jonathan,

I was just recalling the hunt for Joseff Thomas's chess background when
he had the outrageous insolence to speak about chess on the radio before
consulting anyone on here to see if it was OK.

But thanks anyway for reassuring us (twice) that Dominic is not 200+.

[Roger de Coverly]

I was just recalling the hunt for Joseff Thomas's chess background when
he had the outrageous insolence to speak about chess on the radio before
consulting anyone on here to see if it was OK.

It's a reasonable point, but chess players like to look for truth. Thus claims by the Times Chess Correspondent of umpteen British titles should be subject to critical scrutiny, as are claims by an ex-ECF President of being the most active player in England and leading the Grand Prix before withdrawing. For that matter you can add the claims by a former World Women's Champion and the claims of the current ECF President of the number of chess players in the world.

In the case of both Joseff Thomas and Rachel Reeves, it was established that they had the right to call themselves a British Champion, but not the British Chess Champion. Perhaps that is a too subtle distinction, but it devalues those genuinely the best if lesser achievements are given equal weight.

[Kevin Thurlow]

From memory, DL was about 190 when I played him some years ago, so it's not the same as someone claiming to be an expert when they have never played competitively.

I think it's a great idea for a programme - all you need is the right guests.

[stevencarr]

Was there a similar thing a few years back when Steve Davies was interviewed about chess?

I hope the programmes are really good.

The book 'Chess Treasury of the Air' was excellent when I read it decades ago. Wish I had still kept it.

[Jonathan Bryant]

From memory, DL was about 190 when I played him some years ago, so it's not the same as someone claiming to be an expert when they have never played competitively.

I think it's a great idea for a programme - all you need is the right guests.

This article includes the list of guests
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/d ... nnox-lewis




Completely agree with you about your first comment - although I think the problem is not so much people claiming to be experts as much as other people (journalists, PRs) claiming expertise on their behalf.

[David Robertson]

Hhmm. Good, I guess, to the extent that the game is receiving media attention. But be careful what we wish for. Reading the Guardian link above, I get the feeling these interviews will be high on superficiality - likely, given the time available - offset somewhat in the audience's mind by the conceit that a serious chess game is in progress behind the chat. Things could turn out badly then if the concept is judged to be little more than a schedule-filling gimmick at a slack time of year.

[Ihor Lewyk]

I say hats off to Dominic Lawson.
I think the chess community should welcome this venture instead of assuming negativity before it has even been broadcast.

Let's all tune in to it and show the BBC that there is an audience wanting to hear and see things about chess.

Any criticism should be left until after the event and if done constructively it still might have the desired result of producing the shows we want to hear and see in the future.

[Alex McFarlane]

Let's all tune in to it

Or play at Hastings and download it.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Roger,

"...but chess players like to look for truth...."

The only truth in a game of chess is the point you score at the end of it.
That is why we play. You can get it by good play or swindling.

These so called 'truth seekers' in positions are fake. Have they never swindled a player.
Do they just resign when they have a bad but playable position. No.
They lay down obstacles, trick and traps, it is what good players do and that is the truth.

Also there seems to be a mix up at being an expert at Chess and an expert on Chess.
You do not need to a 200+ player to be an expert on Chess.
The 200+ grade means you are good playing the game.

Explainng it and having a deep knowledge about the games history, laws etc is entirley different.

If I wanted to know about Chess then I'd seek out an expert on the game.
Mr.Barden, Edward Winter, Stewart Reuben, Alex Mac....yes Dominic Lawson.
People who could talk for hours and hours about the game and answer any question you have.

I would not pull names out of hat containing all the active 200+ players thinking,
as some of you no doubt do, that these guys have all answers to everything that is plaguing mankind.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Also there seems to be a mix up at being an expert at Chess and an expert on Chess.
You do not need to a 200+ player to be an expert on Chess.
The 200+ grade means you are good playing the game."

Exactly. I doubt Patrick Moore was the best astronomer or that Brian Cox is the best physicist, but they were/are very good at explaining the subject. The best teachers of chess are rarely the best players. We know Dominic Lawson is a good communicator.

[Stewart Reuben]

Dominic is an excellent columnist (read the Sunday Times and his article about his sister). a strong chessplayer and somebody who has benefitted chess. The series should be very interesting and entertaining.

[Kevin Thurlow]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25491642

Lennox may be an enthusiastic player, but he needs a bit of training... It's actually a bit unfair publishing the game, although it will stop future arguments like "how good was Bogart, Bonar Law, (etc)...?"

[James Pratt]

Read Lawson regularly in 'New Society' magazine. His chess column is very detailed.

[JustinHorton]

There's a "New Society" magazine?

[Matt Mackenzie]

Not since about 25 years ago I thought?